click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20131028
20131105
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 89 (some duplicates have been removed)
an opportunity before we turn to our witnesses. the debate over stand your ground laws raises fundamental questions about self-defense in the be united states of america. in recent years we've seen a dramatic increase in laws expanding the situation in which a person can legally use deadly force in response to a perceived threat. florida passed the first of this new wave of stand your ground laws in 2005. prior to 2005, florida law held that a person outside his home could not use deadly force and then claim self-defense if the person could have safely avoided the confrontation. this, quote, duty of safe retreat, closed quote, sought to prevent public disputes from escalating into violence. but the gun lobby pushed to change florida's law so people could shoot someone who threatened them without first trying to avoid a confrontation. florida wasn't the first state to adopt the stand your ground principle, but florida's 2005 law expanded the principle in several dramatic new ways. first, the law grants criminal and civil of immunity for use withs of deadly force -- for uses of deadly force
." that's because he found out that his policy, which came into effect just two months after the law's arbitrary cutoff date for grandfathered plans, will be discontinued next year. and he's not happy about this at all. especially given the fact that a plan on the obamacare exchanges will dramatically drive up his insurance costs from $400 a month to more than $700 a month with zero subsidies available. here's what he had to say. he said my wife and i are 54. we don't need maternity care, and we don't need obamacare. well, he's right to be upset. this is simply not in keeping with the spirit of the president's oft-repeated promise. perhaps the administration would like to tell him he should have just done a better job of keeping up with its regulatory dictates. but what about the millions who purchased their plans relying on the president's promise that they could keep them? what about the husbands and wives across kentucky who suffered when two of our largest employers had to drop spousal coverage? what about the folks who lost coverage at work? what about all the smaller paychecks
received overwhelming number of stories from my constituents with concerns about the health care law. >> 23,000 are losing access to the state sponsored program which covered those with preexisting conditions, seniors and small children and small businesses. one small business owner, greg from my district shared this story with me. i want to share this with diane. i operate a small painting business and very happy with the cover tennessee program for small businesses and their employees. it had a small co-pay and covered up to $25,000 each year. it covered 12 doctors visits and annual physical at reasonable costs and this is being canceled effective january 2014 because it does not meet the requirements of obama care. this directly contradicts the comments made by president obama that we could keep our existing program. they had affordable health care that they liked but they didn't get to keep that. and i ask, is this right or is this just for this group of people. these 28,000 citizens of tennessee are now forced to find new coverage plans on the health care website there are people out t
it's only the federal government has an estimated 5000 or so criminal laws that have over criminalized this country. hopefully when i am here again for a hearing weekend fervently work toward eliminating or correcting the thousands of federal laws that have sometimes put people behind bars for things that most americans have no clue would be against the criminal law. so senators i humbly implore you let's leave state criminal law to the consideration of the state legislatures though we in congress will probably be well served to take advice from the states that are still solvent. thank you. >> thank you congressman gohmert and i want to thank your college scholars from the tear is in congressman fudge for their testimony as well. we appreciate your being here today and we are going to proceed to the second panel as you depart. thank you again. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i'm sorry. if i can ask you all to please stand. it's customary to give the oath before this committee. if you please raise your right hand. view from the testimony you're about
that these are just real americans committed to following the law and catching bad guys at the end of the day. it's important we get to the privacy issues that are important. i just wanted to ask this particular question. i dpsh some talk about a permanent advocate in the fisa court. i scratch my head a bit, and i can't find that anywhere else, and in a criminal grand jury, there's no advocate on behalf of the person they're seeking indictment; is that correct? >> that's correct. there's no advocate, and even when a witness goes in a grand jury, they don't go in and are not allowed to go in with an attorney, and in particular, probably the closest am ji is the acquisition of a wiretap for domestic criminal law enforcement, and that doesn't involve any sort of adversary process at all, but an ex parte process with the government or agent going in similar to the fisa process we have now. >> and by design, the court was supposed to be that adversary -- too strong a word -- but to check the compliance with the law and constitution; is that correct? >> correct. this is the constitutional protection th
to say nevada law also includes robust protections against this type of discrimination. officer carney testified before the house of representatives in 2007 and shared his story. mr. president, this is what he said: "i'm god cop. i've lost two and a half years of employment, fighting to get that job back because i'm gay. i never would have been able to do that had i not lived in massachusetts or in one of the handful of other states that protect employees from discrimination. sadly you mr. president, not everyone is able to fight back like officer carney. in 33 states, lesbian, gay yo cn be fired or harassed just for being who they are. sam hall was terrorized by his coworkers for seven years because he was gay. mr. hall just wanted to make a living. but supervisors told him he would have to endure the persecution if he wanted to keep his job. west virginia is one of 33 states with no protections against this type of discrimination. that's why, mr. president, i so admire joe manchin for recognizing that this is an issue that's important to everyone. patchwork of state laws excludes ten
on the formal identity of the parties instead of on the law that we say and that the government acknowledges implicates religious liberty interests. the district court did answer these two questions first whether or not gilardi is substantially burdened by the hhs this -- hhs mandate and the court encrypt they said no. the court incorrectly said no. had the court answered either of these crackly nephew it would have received a strict scrutiny test which should've been easy given the massive holes in the scope of the coverage written to this mandate and the ready availability of less restrictive means of achieving the government schools. as we see this case there are four tabs or roots to get to strict scrutiny. the first one is to look at the gilardi's as individuals and whether or not there's a burden on them. the second is the companies as persons exercising religion. the third is what some courts have referred to as they pass through standing whereby a closely held family type corporations such as this one can assert the free exercise rights of its owners and forth is a roots that only ju
of the field of the national security law. my name is harvard for the standing committee on law and national security and i did that with jim mcpherson has the chair the committee. i want to get a few administrative issues out of the way. the first is for everyone in the room c-span is here so when you ask your questions we appreciate it if you would identify who you are and speak clearly in a short crisp question for the panel. i have a number of other administrative announcements. the first is cle for continuing legal education. we would like you to make sure you fill out the forms and give them to holly. you will also notice we have the scale of sheets that are on your table. they are reviews. we use them -- we review them very carefully afterwards. that is why we think our programs have improved over the years because we listen to what you have to say and try to give you the type of programs you really are interested in. we would also have another announcement. our committee will be having on friday november 15 an address addressed by ambassador marc grossman. he is the vice-chairman of
of progression of slowly dismantling the campaign-finance laws, the foundation of those laws we got in the 1970's. citizens united is by far the biggest there. upcoming case will be another one, the listing rules for aris. and potentially some court watchers believe, he could not down the benefits given to candidates and parties themselves. so, the citizens united is the most high-profile decision on this issue, but very much in a string of cases and we do not know how this is going to and yet either. marianne from tennessee on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about dark money. when the representatives who are supposed to be representing us shut down the government over obamacare, the stock market went down. resumed, iternment went up the same day. since these representatives get a heads up on the market movements, how many of them made money, who were they, and how much? host: andy kroll. guest: that is a good question. that gives back to what the previous color said about the stock act. there is absolutely the for them to act on information they h
into effect as the result of bigger waters flood insurance reform law. so i urge my colleagues in the senate to pass this bipartisan bill that was introduce by senator menendez and senator isakson that would delay the premium increases set to go into effect until after fema has done a study and provided congress with a plan to make the rates basically affordable. our families work so hard. they're trying to rebuild. and, frankly, they deserve nothing less. some homeowners, even as they do rebuild, have started seeing their rates increase. this would cause so many of our constituents to be forced out of their homes and communities that they love, that they lived in their whole lives. this is why the menendez-isakson bill is so critical and why i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation. now as we focus on providing communities with all of the resources they need to rebuild from sandy, the federal government is partnering with states and local governments, the private sector and academia to develop solutions that will protect us from the ne
at the same time, it must the united states department of justice and constrained by the rule of law balances ecks and built into our brilliant design by our nation's founders. a tension relate flekted in those two aspects of fidelity. two values that i see in that word. and that was detect in the ten-year term i've just begun. ten years to ensure independence and it's a fixed years to ensure the power is not concentrated in one person and unconstrained. the need for reflection and restraint of power is what led order all new agent classes visit the olocaust museum here in washington so they could see and way and hear in a palpable the consequences of abusive massive almost unimaginable scale. ob mueller continue that practice and i will again when we have agents graduating from quantico. the balance reflected in my term is also a product of lessons history ofd from the this great institution. our first half century or so is time of great progress and achievement in this country and bureau. but it saw abuse and overreach. most famously with respect to martin luther king and others. as i think
law enforcement to go after other crimes such as human smuggling and intellectual property theft? >> well, certainly, it would change the situation there. there's been a mixed message sent for places where drugs have been legalized. in canada, there is medical marijuana permitted, and the canadians say that organized # crime is teaking advantage of the fact there is medical marijuana permitted, setting up growth facilities and things like that. in the netherlands, there's been a substantial loosening of drug issues there, but interesting thing is it brought in a lot more drugs in the netherlands since they legalized marijuana to the point that starting this year, the netherlands prohibits any foreigner from going into their pot shops. the checks have legalized a significant amount of drugs recently. that allowed the police and the resources of the czech republic to focus efforts elsewhere, but it has not done much for the drugs at all, and poe land, i believe it is, there's a fairly successful story of legalizing drugs and things getting better there, so i think it's really going
they're in a union or not. mr. griffin has extensive experience in employment law. he's highly respected by his fellow labor lawyers on both the union and business sides. as general counsel for the nlrb he will safeguard fair compensation and working conditions for all american workers. this week the senate will also vote on a number of other crucial executive nominations. some of whom have been stalled for more than a year. the senate will consider the nomination of katherine archuleta to serve as director of the office of personnel management. that is an extremely important position. she started her career in public service as an elementty tri schoolteacher. she will be the agency's first hispanic director. this is what she said -- and i quote -- "you do it as public service because have you a deep passion for public good and civic engagement. that's her quote. she's working in both the transportation and energy departments under president clinton, she served as chief of staff to tib the the labor secretary hilda solis for three years. she is emintentsly qualified yet ms. arc
, and is designated a global terrorist under u.s. law. we continue to discuss security with the iraqi government, although this is only one aspect of our cooperation. political and economic tools must also be used to drain the recruiting pool of all extremist groups. we therefore welcome the prime minister's commitment to holding national parliamentary elections. the strategic agreement gives the united states a unique role in fostering democratic development. we will work with the united nations and iraqi leaders to ensure that all technical requirements to ensure freedom and elections are in place. i want to assure you that if iraq faces these challenges, it will have a committed partner in the united states. our relationship was rooted in respect and interest, as enshrined in the strategic framework agreement, are permanent and enduring roadmap. i thank you for this opportunity and ask you to help me welcome prime minister nouri al-maliki. [applause] >> in the name of god, may the blessing of god be upon you. i want to express my gratitude and esteemed to former congressman mr. jim marshall f
no offense having been a law clerk, but the fees for junior attorneys having been law clerks, i wonder if you could talk more about who the legal advisers actually are and what role they serve. >> when i started in the court in 2002, there was one legal advisor. when i left, i think there were four or five. i can't remember. clerks noreither law magistrates. it is a unique role they perform. i think i can speak for myself when i say -- and i'm the author of the treaties and surveillance, so i know more than most of the judges going into it, but they know more about the workings of the agencies than any individual judge can. we rely upon them to assist us in making decisions. to give you an example, they get by fisk role, seven days before we get, and application, and they will read through what is called the read copy. and jim will confirm there is a lot of legal push back between the legal advisers in the court and the oi pr. i know from personal experience there is a lot of pushback and thethe oipr agencies. someone said this morning that they don't want the junk, because if they do, we wil
they put a name on. there's no law that says a title of a bill has to be truthful and sometimes that's how you can end up with a bill calling itself affordable care, when a majority lose their insurance, don't get for re they need or, example, find out in three to five years when they need a new pacemaker, the new law will not allow them to get it. those are problems. and what i have also found more and more of are senior citizens who are now beginning to figure out that when the aarp endorsed bamacare, i don't think it's disrespectful to the president justll the bill obamacare, as the president and others called the bill that governor omney signed in massachusetts, romneycare. i don't consider it disrespectful to former governor romney to call it romneycare. i don't think it's disrespectful to call the unaffordable care act obamacare. so no disrespect to the president intended by referring to his signature bill. but people have been hurt. people have been moved from full-time employment to part-time employment. they like their insurance policy, but then they found out they didn't get to
to discontinue the plans that people had when the law was passed, yes or no? >> not when the law was passed. no, sir. that's the grandfather clause. >> that's because the plans existed prior to passage of the law are grandfathered in as you have said? >> that's correct. >> so if an insurance company is no longer offering a certain plan, that's because that insurance company made a decision to change their policies and that caused them to take away the grandfather status from their insurance purchasers, is that right? >> that's correct. >> now, madame secretary. i want you to submit for the record a statement of what it is we can do about insurance companies that run around canceling the policies of their people and i don't have time to get the answer but i want to get a very clear statement from you as to what you can do so we can take some skin off some folks that have it coming. madame secretary, it's my understanding that these decisions of a business character are most common in the individual insurance market and that much turnover already exists and existed prior to the enactment of the l
. that is why allowing insurers to continue offering deficient plans next year is such a bad policy. the law says that all plans except those that were grandfathered in 2010, must meet the new consumer protection standards. if we don't enforce this policy, insurance companies can continue offering flimsy coverage that disappears when people actually need it and no one should want that. it is understandable that there will be a focus today on what isn't working, but we must also remember what is working. the health insurance plans that are being offered in the exchanges are good plans. the premiums are much lower than expected. 60% of the uninsured individuals shopping in the new marketplaces will be able to get coverage for less than $100 per month. half of the young adults will be able to get coverage for less than $50 per month. and since congress adopted the affordable care act, health care costs across the whole economy have grown at their lowest level in decades. the success of the affordable care act is due to the efforts of many people, but one individual more than any other is respon
clearly, there is a demand. we need to get information to people about the law. this is the law, this is not any longer a debate. it was a law passed by both houses of congress, signed by the president of the united states, upheld by the supreme court. the president was reelected. it is the law. and people have benefits and rights under that law, and we've got to get that information so they can make good choices for themselves and their families. >> well, thank you. it is the law, and, frankly, i find it disconcerting that my republican colleagues have done nothing but root for this law to fail for the last three and a half years. and now there's a big show here of being upset at problems with the website and keeping people from signing up for coverage fast enough. so i would just say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you're really on the wrong side of history here. the website will be fixed and millions of americans will be able to get quality affordable health insurance coverage through the affordable care act. and again, i thank you for being here today, madam
marketplace before the affordable care act became law? >> i would say it wasn't a mark marketplace at all. it was unprotected, unregulated, and people were really on their own. >> madam secretary, the kaiser family foundation reports have over 50% turnout of individuals that have coverage and individual market churn out coverage every year. they either lose coverage, priced out or drop it s that consistent with what you're aware snf. >> that's an accurate snapshot. about a third of the people are in for about six months. and over half are in for a year or less. >> so individuals that were in the individual marketplace before the passage of the affordable care act did not have the same protections as those in group coverage? >> that's true. >> and would those individuals in the individual marketplace sometimes have higher co-pays? >> higher co-pays, unlimited out of pocket costs for often coverage that was medically underwritten or excluded whatever medical condition they had in the first place. >> so these were typically one-year contracts. if they use the plan because they got sick nor a
law enforcement and intelligence analysts together. could you comment on the effectiveness of this approach so far and give us some idea what kind of institutions gnarlly and internationally could be built on that foundation going forward. >> well, the fbi has two types of fusion centers, and dhs has yet another one. they have, basically, different tuckses. the fbi has the joint terrorism task forces. before 9/11, i believe there were 4 # in existence, and today, there's 103. they have been a tremendous success story. building on that, the fbi has built a field intelligence groups, and -- which are more oriented, and the best of the understanding, i've been away from the fbi for a whim now, but it's been equally successful. the home land security fusion centers have a different focus, and i'm probably going to do dhs a disservice here, but what they basically do is they work more with the politicians, the mayors and the governors to help them understand what the problems are in their area so that they can take the actions on their own. could that be done on an international
secret activity, it almost seems like a contradiction. how do you address laws that we don't want to talk about in public? democraticke a fully function and the government will fully comply, but how do you write about things that the government doesn't want to talk about? >> we can talk about the purpose of the program in the framework for the program. certainly, i recall very specifically in the debate on the fisa amendments in 2008, that is what we did. maybe members of congress for not paying much attention, but it was out there on the airwaves what the issues were. certainly, the telephone metadata had been disclosed by the "new york times" and then partially declassified by president bush in late 2005. there was conversation out there. congress can do that and that should happen. there could be public hearings as there are now public hearings about competing versions of the lawstial fixes for the that we have. yes, a portion of this is classified. exactly how it works is classified. why do we want to tip our playbook to the bad guys? that can be explained to the public, too. want sho
in the state senate, i believe in state's rights. states have the rights to develop their own ag laws. we must protect those rights and make sure its own agricultural protection laws are protected in section 11/3/12. the nutrition program is also an important piece. making sure that our kids have the heltiest lunch possible. making sure that the fruits they dpet are an important part -- it should be based on nutrition for our kids. that's something i'm looking forward to seeing work on this bill as well. let's get people wac to work. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, chairman lucas. i'd like to take a quick moment to wish a belated happy birthday to our colleague, marcia bunch. >>> the district i represent has part of lincoln's presidential suute. president lincoln did a lot. in fact, in the span of three months, abraham lincoln signed into law to create the department of agriculture, the land grant university system and the homestead act. now, if our predecessors can do all of that in three months, we augu ought to be able to take october, november and december and pass this bill. >>>
of people just as well as certain law changes like delaying the employer mandate, but keeping the individual mandate on the books when it comes to the president's health care law. i think people are paying more attention. they have more access to more varied view points on what's happening in washington, and they learn too many of our lawmakers are not representing the interests of the american people well, but their own interests and interest of well connected groups in washington. i think that's another reason why people are increasingly distrusting their government looking for somebody who will represent their views. i think they are looking for principled leadership, and i think we saw some of that with the shutdown where some lawmakers stood for principle, know the law is bad, and we -- lawmakers, they didn't vote for it. it was passed on a purely partisan basis, and the house has the constitutional right to deny funding to laws like that, and an attempt to do that was important to show that lawmakers act on principle at times and in the best interest of the nation. >> our next question
comey on the stage. -- directoralker comey was his first law clerk when he was in the southern district of new york. comey's wife patrice. thank you for taking part in today's ceremony. also, the director's children. welcome. [applause] also, director comey's brother and sister. we welcome you. a special welcome to director comey's father. welcome. [applause] we are here today for two purposes. wast, director james comey sworn in in a privates or money privatember 4 -- ceremony on september 4. second, we wanted to be able to officially welcome director james comey and his family into the fbi's family. [applause] we are all honored to mark this thesion along with director's family and his close friends. seated pleasee rise for the presentation of the colors. please remain standing for the singing of the national anthem , a retired newr york port authority police heardr, whose voice was at the funerals of so many of his colleagues killed on september 11. ♪ >> oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and b
of direction. the florida law and we stand by the verdict. .. >> this allows them to go ahead and believe they are under danger and take a life. thank you for letting me. >> yeah. i would like to make a couple comments. one is if you actually look at the data, look at the tampa bay tribune data that,ing the for the factors in the cases, you find that minorities both blacks and hispanics are much more successful in raising stand your ground defenses than whites are. there's another point that needs to be made, and that is the ambiguity. it's -- one type of ambiguity was discussed, but there's the ambiguity having to face the person who is agenting in self-defense. what's the appropriate amount to retreat when they have to defend themselves, and the issue here might be who do we want to make, have to make deal with that ambiguity. when somebody's facing very quick decisions that they have to make in terms of life and death. do we want to make them bear the burden to fry to figure out if at that time how far they are going to retreat, and then make them realize they maybe second guessed as i
and administrative law, constitutional matters, strat industry tri construction, even criminal appeals. she's represented army reservists and business interests including the chamber of commerce as well as civil rights plaintiffs. ms. millet is a nominee with unquestionable integrity and character. she's committed herself to pro bono work. she has done this throughout her career and has engaged in significant community service. it's interesting at a press conference i held yesterday, we had spouses of people in the military and we talked about another aspect of her career. her husband is now retired navy reservist, but as a military spouse when he was called up, ms. millet has a personal understanding of the sacrifice we ask of our service members and their families. at the very height of her legal career, her husband was called on to deploy as part of operation iraqi freedom. he left, of course, as those who are called to serve do, but she's left at home with two young children. and what did she do 12347 she did what spouses all over this country do, she filled the role of both parents at
-- >> you're in charge of this law, correct, why aren't you in the exchange? >> because i'm part of the federal employee health benefit plan. >> why won't you go into the exchange? you're a part of this law, literally in charge of this law. should you be any different than the americans out there losing their health insurance? >> i'm part of the 95% with affordable eligible health care coverage. >> most americans aren't available to them. why will you not agree -- >> i'm not eligible for the exchange because i have coverage in -- >> you can decide to drop your coverage of your employer. you have the choice to decide not to choose -- >> that the not true, sir. >> members of congress are now part of the exchange thanks to an amendment that was added by congress but i'm not eligible. >> with all due respect. >> if i have affordable coverage in my workplace, i'm not eligible to go into the marketplace, that's part of the law. >> madam secretary, i would encourage you to be just like the american people and enter the exchange and agree to find a way -- >> it's illegal. i would like to
we have to explain to administration officials have a lot worse. the law is if you are under the age of 26 and url jubal to stay under your pants plans, you cannot receive subsidies. website nothing on your that tells an under 26-year-old those facts. you are encourage people to sign up for insurance in a subsidy they may not be our chore and i do not even notice. class congressman ryan, i am happy to go back and check on that and get you information. class my time has expired. class one of the differences here in the legislative modeling is the way we attempted to repair the drug prescription benefit in terms of addressing the doughnut hole. we did not suggest we wanted to repeal the law. we simply said to repair it and remind everyone part of the gimmickry as it related to the doughnut will -- donut hole as well, the affordable care act, you can safely say, that is happened. we are in the midst of marketing. the open enrollment plan. so people right now, the i want tois terrific. come to another point. there is a great picture at daniel hall, where much of the american revolution w
. doubled. those are real stories of fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, who have to live with the law that up to now has completely failed them. ms. tavenner, the administration delayed the employer mandate for one year. the treasury witness before the committee testified the reason the administration granted big business a one-year delay is, quote, employers and their representatives have requested transition relief for 2014 because of concerns about the difficulty or cost of complying with the employer mandate. secretary sebelius appeared before this committee and repeatedly said obama care was ready. it clearly wasn't. doesn't the failed launch indicate many individuals are going to have to at least have as much difficulty complying with the individual mandate as big business had with the employer mandate, yet from the announcement last night, you've only given individuals a six-week delay. cms announced 700,000 people had submitted applications for exchange coverage nationwide, but with all the challenges you have been facing, there are some serious questions about what these appl
trayvon martin's mother testifying at the hearing on stand your ground laws. .. only those recognized to speak will be allowed to. >> and those who are not in compliance will be removed from the committee room. i would like to welcome our first panel today. the director of the national intelligence james clapper deputy attorney james cole national security or keith alexander the deputy director of the nsa chris ingalls. following the first panel we will move immediately into the second panel of nongovernment experts who are very knowledgeable on fisa and privacy issues. today's hearing will provide an open forum to discuss amendments to the surveillance act and possible changes to the way fisa applications are handled at the department of justice and the nsa. i hope that all of our witnesses will give clear answers about how the proposal is under consideration in congress would affect the nsa's ability to stop terrorist attacks before they occur and encourage members to answer questions about fisa amendments and nsa programs. today i'm going to submit my statement for the wreck erred
can expect if washington democrats continue their stubborn defense of this partisan law. now, mr. president, on another .atter politicians regularly come to washington promising fiscal responsibility. since congress passed the bca with overwhelming bipartisan , washington has actually reduced the level of government spending for two years running. the bca savings are such a big deal that the president inpaigned on it endlessly 2012. he bragged about the bipartisan .uts he told audiences from california to baltimore that he signed $2 trillion in spending cuts into law. like to say these days, elections matter and the president explicitly stated that he put these on the back of the bipartisan spending cuts. fromet the exit polls november. two thirds said raising taxes to cut the deficit was a nonstarter. whiched to obamacare, more voters said they wanted to repeal, the levels of support are striking. if our friends on the other side contradict -- keep obamacare contradicted by the then have to called the mandate for reducing the size of government day superman date -- a super manda
the law. we have no idea if that's true. we are clueless as to whether or not that's true. because this process has become in a way a pro forma kind of process with contractors, and the reason the contractors were off the reservation is because they bid an amount and that contractor wanted to make money so that was time to cut corners. you wanted to make your number, you wanted to make money, you just turned it in, you just pretended like you did. so i agree with the chair and the ranking member that this is time for all of us to really, you know, quit nibbling around the edges on this thing and let's get to the meat of the matter. saying that seattle doesn't ve a police report, that dog doesn't hunt in this context. that just doesn't work. and mr. lewis, i have a specific question for you. my subcommittee has learned that we have a bunch of felons on navy installations. e have learned that the navy was giving these contractors 28 temporary passes at the git-go without any checks on anybody. is that true? >> this was a subject of a d.o.d. i.g. report and the navy has looked into th
sometimes congress imposes, on your agent see your closely constrained by law and regulation that congress has imposed. we were recently treated with the debt ceiling to an example of that where the congress was going to demand the president violate some law. we save taxpayers, spend this, math has been required for certain amount of borrowing but you may not be able to bore. congress was going to kill the president violate some law. is it fair to say that under the structure, the congressionally imposed structures and regulations of fha that fha has performed as well as could under the circumstances? >> i believe within everything to perform as well as we can. >> that leaves the question of why are you here asking for a $1.7 billion as the other side puts it, bailout? let me read you the last line of the majority staff memo on this. the last line, just to be clear, this bailout is required because the mmif is that 16.3, negative 16.3 -- >> yes. >> the last one of the majority staff member reach, the mmif negative 16 with the economic pie represents a decrease of 17.49 billion from its 1.1
in terms of we understand under the case law. >> i would disagree with your assessment of the grandfathering exemptions. the regulation itself says it is a right and it's a definite. >> your case hinges on how we construe the grandfathering? >> not necessarily. the other exemptions have about be taken into account as well. >> we've gone through them. have i missed some? >> no, that is the point. >> well, they're insignificant. corporations you can't argue that as a basis. >> that is why we're here because we don't qualify for any of the exemptions. we're saying rifra requires we begin an exemption because of those other exemptions. we don't pretend we're a religious corporation. we have say the exercise of religion is not necessarily limited to people in the quote, unquote, religion business. anymore than in the bill lotty case, the supreme court rejected this approach that freedom of speech for corporations for corporations in the speech business. i frankly disagree with your honor's assessment of the scope of the exemptions. they're massive. >> there is a case, i don'
. as the law says and as the president made clear in the statements that you cite, if you had insurance coverage on the individual market when the affordable care act was passed into law and you liked that plan and you wanted to stay on it even though it didn't meet the minimum standards that the affordable care act would bring into place on january 1, 2014, you can keep that coverage. you're grandfathered in. that plan and your association with it are grandfathered in citizen in perpetuity. not for a year, not for five years, but forever. but what is not the case is if your insurer basically threw you off that plan by telling you after a year or two that it was changing and said here's your new option because your plan has changed, that that new plan is grandfathered in because how could that be? you can't grandfather in a plan -- >> [inaudible] >> look, it's not about fault. insurers are in the leadup to the creation of these marketplaces were doing what they'd always done. and based on the incentives that existed in the existing insurance market for individuals. the good news is that
stating that the new health care law was indeed the reason for the removal of my current health care plan. madam secretary, what you would tell shawn who liked his plan and now lost it? he was promised by you and the president he'd be able to keep that plan. what would you tell shawn now that he lost his plan? >> i would tell him to shop in the marketplace and out of the marketplace. >> do you really think that's acceptable answer to shawn. >> if united chose not to keep shawn's plan in effect for shawn -- >> because of the law. >> sir, the law said if you keep shawn's plan in place, if he liked his plan, if you only -- then the plan is still there. >> you and i may disagree over who you work for. i work for shawn. you work for shawn, madam secretary. shawn lost his plan that he liked. and there are thousands and millions of shawns throughout this country that lost the plan they liked because some bureaucrat in washington said we think your plan is not good enough even though you like it, even though you were promised can you keep it, you're now not able to keep that plan. i think you des
bench. she has the support of the national women's law center, the women's bar association and the national congress of american indians. ms. millett is well-qualified and we should confirm her now. one justification -- and i don't think it is a good one -- but the only justification i've heard is not about her at all, madam president. it's about the d.c. circuit, some of my colleagues think that they should remain with three openings on their bench. i don't think this argument squares with the facts. currently three of the 11 seats on the d.c. circuit are empty, and according to the administrative office of the courts, seniors judges, judges who are partially retired, are now involved in over 40% of the cases that are decided on the merits. before he was our supreme court justice, john roberts was confirmed to sit on the d.c. circuit. ten years ago, when chief justice roberts was confirmed to sit on that circuit, the average judge on that court had only 125 pending cases. today, with three vacancies on the court, that number is 185 cases. those are the complex cases that a
showing a blatant disregard for systems and laws designed to protect the hotel. as our filings made clear, these are not victimless crimes. americans trust medications prescribed for their parents and grandparents, for their children and for themselves. they are selected because they are in the patient's best nterest. the laws enacted by congress and the enforcement efforts of the fda provide important safeguards to ensure that the drugs are proof -- are approved for uses that are safe as well as effective. efforts by drug companies to introduce their drugs into interstate commerce for unapproved uses subvert those laws. likewise, payment of kickbacks undermines the independent medical judgment of healthcare providers. it creates financial incentives to increase the use of certain drugs, potentially putting the help of some patients at risk. every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers. they jeopardize the public health and they take money out of the taxpayers pockets. this settlement demonstrates that the depar
's -- that actually upheld the president's health care law as constitutional. and it's the same court that twice upheld the president's executive order on embryonic stem cell research of the and it is the same court that's ruled in favor of the obama administration in the majority of environmental cases that have come before it, including ones about the regulation of greenhouse gases and mountaintop coal mining. that sound like a court doing its job without fear or favor in an impartial way, administering justice, not engaging in crass partisanship or tilting at ideological windmills. the critics of the crentsz court don't mention those decisions that i must mentioned when they're criticizing the court. instead, they appoint -- they bounty to three separate rulings where the obama administration did not fair so well. the first one of those was a ruling that struck down the securities and exchange commission proxy access rule, which has to do with corporate governance. now, i know that sound like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. but the court found that the agency failed to conduct a proper quoft-benefit
stupid federal law, you have been required to access taxpayer money. by the way, are you going with h.r. 1028, acted and unnecessary are opening 2013? >> you think it's a good idea? you don't have to say. >> it's complicated. >> i know you do. that act which stops this stupid bark at get us off the treadmill. if you were in trouble i would be happy to jump on you. hound you pretty good. because $48 billion in the bank and you don't think you have to use it, and yet we are having another hearing today. i have a friend who just bought a $200,000 condo. it took $50,000 down. that's pretty good, right? they had to borrow $150,000. they have an auto loan, credit card, they owe about $175,000 have about $10,000 in the bank. all my god, they are one and safety $5000 of negative net worth. call the police. everybody i know has negative net worth except the few people on the other side apparently. [laughter] >> but they still get loans and things go on. there is no federal law that i know of that would require my friends to make another borrowing simply to have money there in case -- you know
the letter of the law. so through all of those internal and external systems of oversight, we are continuously reviewing the way that we conduct our business. >> just to put five points on the class received because i think at nsa we are really worried about conflation of the public record. so what, using the terry stop standard means, the comparison to stop and rest. that would mean a police officer write down the reason for a stop and frisk as we do for the telephone metadata. only one of 22 supervisors approve the stopped and frisked before it would happen. and in our case, the data is all anonymous as opposed to the stop and frisk the point in front of you. the stop and frisk standard we have post in query audits every 90 days, as when a police department audits every 90 days what happens. and we also report to court every 30 days and get it free authorized every 90 days. so while yes, in a legal sense, the legal standard in the lives from the terry stop standard i think just those factors alone distinguished the use of that standard in this context and clearly evidence th
was ready to go. democratic leaders in congress told americans that the law's implementation was fabulous that obamacare was wonderful or the president reassured everyone that it was working the way it was supposed to. and of course, washington democrat bragged about their fancy new website the website that cost taxpayers 100 million, 200 million 300 million? well no one is quite sure. that is just one of the unanswered questions they hope will clarify stand. now to be fair the president likes to say obamacare is about more than just a website. he's absolutely right and that's why fixing a website won't solve the larger problem here. the larger problem is obamacare it so. the larger problem is that the few people who actually have signed up for coverage have discovered about this law. the larger problem is how obamacare is hurting people there. it's about college graduates and middle-class families getting hit with massive premium increases. country and they can't afford. it's about workers seeing their hours cu
an election law and that that moves forward so that people understand that when they have differences they can express them politically, as opposed to through violence. [speaker translates] i also appreciated the efforts that prime minister maliki has made recently to restore stronger relationships with its neighbors, including kuwait and turkey and some of the other gulf states, and expressed my interest in providing whatever support is necessary to make sure that iraq is working cooperatively and effectively with its neighbors. [speaker translates] >> we spent considerable amount of time talking about syria, where the spillover effects of the chaos and assad's horrific treatment of his own people has had spillover effects in iraq as well. [speaker translates] >> and we agreed that it's in the interest of both countries to try to bring about a political settlement, a political transition, inside of syria that allows the syrian people to make decisions about their own lives, while, at the same time, isolating extremist factions that could end up not only threatening people inside of syria, bu
, and health care law with the president of the nra and former adviser to richard nixon. this event hosted by the center of national interest is 90 minutes. >> [inaudible] i'm editor of national interest, and we have convened this meeting because of the crisis that we recently experienced the standoff of president obama and congressional republicans. in a number of questions emerged from that crisis include, but not limited to the future of the republican party itself, the impact on america's image abroad, and what it implies for the duration of president obama's presidency. to answer questions or attempt to address them, we've assembled a distinguished panel here today including david keen, the former chairman of the american conservative union and the current opinion editor of the washington times. david is a veteran, political observer, and has participated in republican party politics for several decades. to the immediate right is the grover m. herman fellow in federal best of my knowledge tear -- budgetary affairs, row institute for economic studies, the heritage foundation, and she w
by law, and it's incumbent upon the president to nominate qualified candidates to fill that. others across the aisle have argued the d.c. circuit doesn't have a high enough caseload. there just aren't enough cases there to justify a full complement of 11 judges. i would note the same republican senators did not make that argument in 2005 when the senate confirmed janice rogers brown and thomas griffith to the tenth and 11th judgeships on the d.c. circuit. mr. president, i ask for order in the senate, please. the presiding officer: the chamber will be in order. mr. durbin: back in 2005 when the senate concurred with the tenth and 11th judgeships in the d.c. circuit, they were the choices on the republican side of the aisle. even though these confirmations which we approved reduced the court's workload to fewer cases per active judge than what we see as president obama sends his nominees to the senate. on april 5, the judicial conference of the united states, which is led by chief justice john roberts, made its federal judgeship recommendations for the 113th congress. the judicial con
law on hospitals. that is live at 3:00 eastern on c-span3. >> i am surrounded by a few of the items that kept -- on the best dressed list. she worked with one of her favorite designers for her suits and daywear outfits. this is the outfit she wore to the formal opening of the saint lawrence seaway. designed dressed as this -- the eisenhower qual. with the houses that many of the eisenhower's lived in. examines --few examples of manes day dresses. ime's day dresses. theie kennedy is a fan of little black dress, and these are main means favorites. her love ofs show bright colors and wild fabrics. first lady, mrs. eisenhower. >> a look now at the cost of higher education. heads of universities in inyland, north carolina meet capitol hill to talk about higher education at lower cost. lawmakers are considering changes to the higher education act which is said to expire at year's end. two hours.ut >> today is the second in our series to examine post secondary education. discuss is ofill interest to policymakers -- that is innovation in higher education. we have spent time in this committe
of mickey mouse. it would have diverted them to a website that said, stob, you're violating federal law. it messed with -- messed is a technical term, but messed with dns, a bad idea. it's different. i think conflating them -- this is a -- this is sort of how things work in a democracy and because we are in a politically difficult situation, maybe it's moving a little more slowly, but i do think we're going to be able to bring them around, and when you talk on the hill, five years ago we probably had this experience, five years ago, they said get out of the way, kid, why bother with the cyber stuff? they get it. we're on a path to fix these things. you will have significant objections though, and one of the things we're not dealing with when i put on the think tank hat what i think is snowden episode, it's not accidental. it's planned, a nonstate actor engaging in information against the u.s.. we have a new kind of opponent, new conflict, we're not doing well in dealing with it right now, and these are things we have to overcome, but i am positive we can overcome them. >> just this part
since the industrial workplace of the postdepression era. yet the labor laws written during this time period are still in place today and the makeup of our workforce has also changed dramatically. today 60% of working households have two working parents. 66% of single moms and 79% of single dads work as well. american workers have had to adapt to keep pace with this changing environment. so should our laws. instead of sticking with an antiquated labor law, i believe we need to update the fair labor standards act to actually meet the changing needs of workers. that's why i'm introducing the family friendly and workplace flexibility act. this bill will allow flexible workplace arrangements such as compensatory time and flexible credit-hour agreements which are currently available to employees working for the federal government. federal employees already have this. allow that to be extended to businesses regulated by the fair labor standards act. currently the flsa prohibits employers from offering compensatory time or comptime to their hourly employees. this bill would amend the flsa to
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 89 (some duplicates have been removed)